> I guess what I'm saying is that we don't read books
in> a vacuum. We bring a context to our reading,
and> George (I guess I can call him "the other George"
now> that he won't be around to refute it) was adding
to> that context. I would be curious to see, if you
ever> went back and re-read the book, whether your
reaction> to it would change.>> G.>
As usual, I guess I was being a little imprecise. I agree
that the context is of interest but I still feel that knowing
of Parker's personal tragedy wouldn't make the book a better
read. It may explain why the book isn't up to (what I
understand) is his usual standard but I doubt that it would
make me feel that it's a better book than I originally
thought it was. And I stand by my point that we should be
able to discuss a book without reference to the author's
personal life
(which is not to say that we have to ignore it, either). I
agree that it is of academic interest and of interest in as
much as we like to know about certain authors but you
certainly can't find out about the personal life of every
author before you read his/her work even if you wanted to.And
you're going to have an opinion of the books you read even if
you don't know anything about the author.I mean to say, how
do we know that every crap book written doesn't have a
personal tragedy behind it? Does it mean we should abandon
having opinions on these books?

Rene

--
# To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
# majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .